analyze_wallet_defi_positions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool identifies, categorizes, calculates USD values, and flags unclassifiable tokens. It does not mention performance or error handling but provides sufficient behavioral context for a safe read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences: purpose, capabilities, usage guidance. No redundant or wasted words; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, capabilities, and usage context adequately. It could mention output format but is sufficient overall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'wallet' having a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes Solana wallet DeFi positions in depth, listing specific actions (staking, lending, LP tokens, idle assets) and positioning it as the most comprehensive wallet analysis tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_token_balances and get_sol_balance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it when the user wants to understand DeFi exposure, portfolio breakdown, or position details. It implies it's the comprehensive option but does not explicitly exclude or name alternatives for simpler queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.